Skip to main content

About your Search

20121129
20121207
STATION
MSNBCW 146
LANGUAGE
English 146
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 146 (some duplicates have been removed)
by the government on purpose. and today, in syria, where they are in year two of a very violent uprising, someone today in syria turned off the whole internet. the whole thing. for the whole country. all of a sudden. like a light switch. look at this graph. shows people using the internet in syria this morning. typing along. tweeting. whatever. and then, boom. lights out. no more internet in syria. somebody hit the off switch. here's another view. the internet in syria humming along, and then all of a sudden, nothing. syria has three cables that connect it to the rest of the world. as of about noon today, local time, this shows the traffic on those cables. all three cables just shut down instantly, off a cliff, nothing moving into syria, nothing flowing out. it's not like this has never happened before. syria has shut down the internet at times of military offensives in this uprising before. and we have seen other governments do this before. the government in egypt shut down the internet last year during the revolution there that toppled mubarak. same thing with government in libya. in the months
the government, that creates a backlash and they go up. i wonder if that's how you think about it or that's how the hisry played out. >> what impresses me is americans have been more open to revenue raising and tax increases. the period i study is the post war period in the united states, between the '40s and '70s. states were facing fiscal pressures. they raised taxes. this is republican governors and lawmakers, democratic governors and lawmakers. they found that individuals, you know, the voters, the taxpayers were willing to retain those taxes when put on the ballot. there's an equilibrium, you can go too far either direction. americans are actually quite happy with using revenue to solve the budget impasses. i think we have gotten out of practice, politicians in particular. >> can i add something? it's an interesting point, then at the federal level, what's fascinating is it did you want matter how high top marginal race has been in the last 50 years or 60 years. the ability of the federal government to actually collect more revenue as a share of gdp has been fairly constant. so there's thi
the tax burden that americans are paying to the federal government. given that, do you support the proposal put forward by john boehner? >> well, because the proposal is significantly amorphous, you could get those revenues through economic growth and we don't really have things nailed down, i don't want to talk about a hypothetical, but there is a danger that when you put revenues on the table, even revenues through economic growth, if you grew at 4% a year, reagan levels, instead of 2%, french levels or obama levels, you would net $5 trillion in additional revenue to the government, you could pay down all of obama's additional debt by higher levels of growth, not raising taxes. so there's a lot of money to be gotten from growth. how they do this, we have to see it written down, but because the obama administration and spokesmen have been so emphatic about all taxes and no spending restraint, all taxes and actually spend -- another stimulus, another solyndra stimulus program -- >> i don't think they've mentioned solyndra, grover, but i'm sure they appreciate your mentioning of
strength during the olympics of course, he proved that, to really help the federal government become more efficient and more effective at setting out or meeting the commitments it makes. i think why not bring in a republican business guy to do that and there's certainly a wonderful tradition. truman brought hoover in from the cold in the 1940s and there was a man who had been villainize ed since the great depression and he ran the hoover commission. of course, fdr, the british were already in the war and he sent wendell willkie over as his personal emissary. there's a great tradition of using the person you beat if you're on the right page. >> aside from that luncheon, chris, speaker -- >> they're not there, though. they're not up to this level yet. these two fellows. i don't see it yet. >> speaker boehner continues to stamp his feet. he says treasury secretary tim geithner, with whom he met this morning, i'm quoting him, has no specific plan. but isn't speaker boehner confusing the issue here? the president has made it clear that he wants to sign a bill that's already passed the senate a
governance, we would blanch. for instance, if egypt says you can only be elected president of egypt with 60% of the vote or if we said here in the united states, you can only be elected president with 60% of the vote, imagine the absolute chaos that would throw american democratic processes into. as the man who wrote the book literally, defending the filibuster, make the case why we should have this institution at all. >> first off, will et me observe that we do elect presidents with less than 50% majority, even presidents who didn't get the most votes. the filibuster isn't the only odd role we have. >> i agree. i'm going after them one by one. >> the long history of the senate more than 200 years filibuster has been around for a good deal of that. the role that the senate has played historically in our system is it's the last place where minority rights are protected. and the twin pillars, the foundation of what makes the senate a unique body is unlimited debate and unfeterred amendment. in the house of representatives, debate is limited, often debates are not permitted at all. in the sena
welker, thank you. >> thanks. good to see you, chris. >>> now from the third branch of government. we're covering the entire government today. we'll find out if the supreme court will weigh in on a pair of hi high-profile cases that would help define the rights and benefits of same-sex couples. pete williams is the justice correspondent. he joins me from outside the supreme court. good morning, pete. >> reporter: good morning, chris. we're wait to go hear whether the court will take either of these two cases. the defense of marriage act passed in 1996 by congress, signed into law by president clinton. and what it says is that for federal law purposes, marriage can exist only between a man and a woman. so that means this in the nine states where same sex marriage is legal, if a same sex couple gets married there, they're considered mayrried for state lw but not federal law and the practical consequence is they are denied about 1,000 federal benefits, tax benefits, survivors benefits, to be covered under health insurance. that sort of thing. it will have to decide whether that law is un
american citizen living abroad, track him down in that other country and then for the u.s. government to kill him with a missile in that other country? the man's father went to court in advance of our government doing that to try to stop the u.s. government from doing it. the father sued to say in advance that his son should be arrested instead of killed on the spot if he was found, but he was found and he was just killed on the spot with a missile. u.s. citizen. then a month later, we killed his 16-year-old son, too. also an american citizen. same cause of death. we have done things in the past decade or so that if you asked anybody in advance of us starting to behave this way, whether the united states of america would ever be a country that behaved this way, there's no way you could have convinced anyone. we granted ourselves position to act this way when we set our response to being the victim of a massive terrorist attack in 2001 was going to be that we were going to declare we were at war. congress passed an authorization of military force against the group that attacked us and
are better off, they pay more in taxes. the government can pay for the usual things and pay down the debt. president clinton, the surplus, he got that partly from raising revenue. raising taxes. but also he did it in a way that grew the economy and the nation prospered and the debt became no big deal and then the debt was gone and the debt clocks that were supposed to be scary got shut off. that was because of prioritizing economic growth and being willing to raise revenues. look when we started growing again after the recession. it was not long after the stimulus kicked in. the government spent money and the economy grew. that's how it works. that's why it used to be a beltway consensus when the economy needed to e grow, you needed economic stimulus in terms of your fiscal policy. now the discussion about how we need to make sure we contract the economy and cause as much pain as possible to the people who will be hurt the most by that contracting, maybe that makes sense on sunday morning, but the rest of us go to work during the week and sometimes we go to parties. right now as we speak,
here by the u.s. government and i feel like i've been dumped here and forgotten. made a commitment to the gulf. bp has paid over twenty-three billion dollars to help those affected and to cover cleanup costs. today, the beaches and gulf are open, and many areas are reporting their best tourism seasons in years. and bp's also committed to america. we support nearly 250,000 jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. >>> house republicans say they have a laundry list of problems with the president's opening bid and budget talks to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. utah congressman jason chafe fits joins me now. the president was campaigning today in campaign mode certainly and basically what the democrats and the white house are saying is this is what the american people voted for. all of the exit polls show that there is strong support, more than 60% of the voters, support tax increases for the wealthy. so how do you counter that? >> well, the president also said he was for a balanced ap
further $200 billion by changing the way government calculates the levels for social security and medicare. humbug, indeed. that's the christmas message from speaker boehner. "hardball" with chris matthews is next. >>> in the belly of the beast. let's play "hardball." ♪ >>> good evening. i'm chris mam ewes in washington. let me start tonight with some grave robbing. we're going gown to the dark, cold tomb of the late romney campaign. we're going to excavate the murky truths that were the living heart and mind of the defeated republican effort. going to exhume tonight the guts of the thinking that went on and went so wrong. tonight, we get what we only guessed at, the results of which played out in the numbers of election night. the nasty, anti-immigrant politics, the attitude toward that 47%, the failure to turn out the white male vote, the reason romney picked ryan and the wild prelude to the clipt eastwood performance. tonight on "hardball," the dark arona of what lies now beneath the dirt so we can understand what it looks like, to think and feel your way into a historic
reform debate, which may be apocryphal, "keep government hands off my medicare." the big tea party uprising was in large part a reaction to the idea, quote/unquote, of socialized medicine. it was the affordable care act, and the government, quote, takeover of health care, that fanned the flames of the post-obama tea party protest. but, of course, most of the actual republicans who were actually elected back then were elected because they ran ads like this. >> congressman brad ellsworth said he would protect our seniors. but when he got to washington, congressman ellsworth voted for the largest cuts in medicare history, over $500 billion. robin carnahan supports $500 billion in medicare cuts, hurting seniors most. rand paul doesn't support higher medicare deductibles for seniors. conway distracts with negative ads to hide his support for obama care, which cuts medicare by $500 billion. >> that was 2010. fast forward to this year's election and the same principle carries through. each side tried to convince voters that the other guy wanted to take the hatchet to medicare. >> the bigg
this before. >> some republicans believe that will give them more leverage. >> it's government at the brink all the time. >> these guys are not serious about negotiating.ç >> the next 72 hours are critical. >> i think we're going over the cliff. >> let's just go over the [ bleep ] cliff. >> let's go over the cliff. >> at least for a few seconds it will feel like we're flying. >> with 26 days to go until america goes off the fiscal curb, the house of representatives chose to end their congressional business for the week today to enjoy a long weekend at home, but john boehner stayed behind and spoke by phone this afternoon to president obama. it was their first conversation in a week. also, this afternoon treasury secretary tim geithner said this on cnbc. >> when it comes to raising taxes on the wealthy, those making more than $250,000, if republicans do not agree to that, is the administration prepared to go over the fiscal cliff? >> absolutely. again, there's no prospect to an agreement that doesn't involve the rates going up on the top 2%. >> "the new york times" reports that senior repu
are in congress, you will reign in spending and reform government, not raise taxes. >> they are just going right back at one another aren't they, boom, boom. these are republicans, all of the sudden just at each other's throats. republican congressman, peter king, responded. >> the fact he brought my wife into it. i don't think he has ever met me, certainly never met my wife. he better hope he doesn't. she will knock his head off. >> king also explained why norquist is wrong on substance. >> i did sign a pledge back in 1996, during the whole conflict with the clinton administration over the government shutdown. i was totally opposed to any tax increases at that time. but to say that a pledge on an issue like taxes would last for a lifetime is ridiculous. ronald reagan raised taxes a number of times because that's what he had to do to close the deal. >> when norquist started his anti-tax pledge, the deficit was $220 billion. now, it tops $1 trillion. this is a turning point for the gop or at least it could be. the other thing you need to know about is the money trail. in 2010, 66% of funding for
't respond to, this party that has paraded around, the party that wants to rein in government spending, they are unable to identify any changes in medicare or entitlement spending which shows the tea party at its core was a phoney, phoney movement. >> joy, it's interesting to hear ron referring to august 2011 because a number of refers appear to have forgotten something happened in november 2012 called a presidential election. >> right. it was an election in which president obama, unprecedented for a democrat, actually ran on a platform of raising taxes. he said, i'm going to raise taxes on the top 2% and he was re-elected resoundingly with it. to what ron said, if it's only $14 trillion, what's the big deal, go ahead and let the rich pay it? that's number one. number two, the other thing that's been exposed and what's true, what's always been true about conservativism is that the core principle is the rich don't pay too much, they pay too little. when they say things like broaden the tax base, they think it's a moral hazard to have a progressive tax code. you want a flatter tax code f
when they were threatening the government shutdown. i mean, where do you even start? >> it's an oklahoma republican, a straight party guide. this is not one of these new england republicans, you know, who's defecting and when he echoes a democratic talking point word for word like that, crystal, it seems to me that he watched this campaign. he believes that this presidential campaign and congressional campaign has taught some lessons that the republicans must now observe. >> i think that's right. i mean, the playing field is fundamentally altered. they went to every length they possibly could to keep the president from succeeding in the first term with the hope of keeping him a one-term president and that strategy failed and failed miserable bly across the board. so, he is realizes they have to reassess that strategy. they can't just be the party of no. look at chris christie, also being a champion in the wake of hurricane sandy. people don't want just knee jerk no government. they want a government that really does work. >> and a "washington post" poll showing 60% of ameri
teaming with weapons that had been seized from the gadhafi government. it was a very dangerous brew. and there was also incidentally unclassified, open source of information. there had been a previous attack, a bomb exploded outside our benghazi mission, the british mission had been attacked, red cross mission. the british government closed its mission in benghazi. i haven't reached a conclusion but i worry that there was a lot of evidence that was not adequately responded to. >> do you think what susan rice said after the fact should be enough to prevent her from being nominated and successfully confirm ford secretary of state? >> i don't. i mean, i'm -- the question of who president obama nominates for secretary of state is obviously up to the president. that's a right he's earned by his re-election. but i have been over the intelligence, the talking points that were given to ambassador rice. i have read over her statements on television that sunday morning over and over again, i met with her, and the acting director of the c. ia, it seems to me that everything she said on those m
they want to and also, let's be real, because the government encourages through the tax code. it is reported in bloomberg in 2009 households with incomes of more than $200,000 claimed almost $60 billion in charitable deductions or 20% of total charitable giving in the u.s. that year. he goes on to site one study that found charitable donations are cut almost dollar for dollar to the increase in the donor's tax bill. so that could be a $60 billion cut to charity coffers. other studies said it could be half that though still likely in many billions of dollars of cuts to charities. that is the reality behind base broadening rate lowering tax reform. not magic. more of a magic trick that leads to a distraction to distract the audience from where the increases really are. but it is tax increase. on charitable giving, buying and state and local taxes. it is a an increase on marginal rates. that's a fair argument to have but is the argument we need to be having? joining me now to have some of that argument is chris hansen president of the american cancer society. the cancer action network. thank yo
the immediate impact from the government coming back and spending wouldn't be that great. the question then is how do businesses and consumers react? i don't think it will be a pretty sight. >> what about the debt ceiling? there was a suggestion? geithner's opening bid that they do a permanent fix and give the president the operative control over whether or not the debt ceiling is raised. there's a lot of confusion out there about what the debt ceiling really is. opponents to this tend to argue this will increase government spending when you and i know it's just to raise the limit for what congress has already appropriated to be spent. >> in a perfect world a debt ceiling is a stupid way to run a railroad. congress should appropriate what it wants to appropriate. the white house and the executive branches should go ahead and spend it and that's the way you should run it. we're not in a perfect world and we have the debt ceiling. i don't see any possibility that the republicans are going to permanently give up the right to weigh in on the debt ceiling from time to time. on the other han
the size of government. and i welcome that. he's choosing to do it outside now rather than inside the senate but he's had a huge, positive influence on the senate and we're going to continue to see that for years to come. >> senator, this may seem like a simple question, but i wonder, and a lot of people do is the senate from your perspective, is the senate a difficult place to be if you are someone who comes from executive background or someone committed to getting things done? is it a frustrating place to exist, day in and day out? >> i would say to you, i saw the article that you wrote earlier today, governors do -- who are used to having their own planes and flying around their states and controlling their own schedules do find it more challenging in the senate. i came from the state senate in wyoming. i enjoyed the opportunity to work with people on both side of the aisle to discuss the issues and continue to try to move proposals forward that i believe in about. i believe this is a place where you can make an effective difference in the direction of the country. >> now, let'
to the government at all. here's the bottom line in all of this. house republicans have voted for paul ryan's budget twice. which turns medicare into a voucher program. that's really what they want to do. if they had the power, that's where they would go. the idea is deeply unpopular with the american people in polls. and that has been shown time and time again e. republicans want these kinds of cuts, but they would rather pin it on president obama than to take the blame. i say bring it on. it does pencil out. let's turn to dr. zeke emanuel, chair of medical ethics and health policy at university of pennsylvania and one of the architects of the affordable care act, which is now obama care. thank you for being with us tonight. sort this out for us. the $400 billion on the table with obama care or with medicare that the republicans deny cuts. who is telling the truth here? >> well, the real issue is whether you're cutting things to beneficiaries or using those cuts to really transform the system to make it more modern. and i think as they did in the campaign, they are trying to say this will harm bene
governed in a far more moderate way than he talked before he became a politician. and i think particularly in the last four years something happened to conservatism and the republican party. my friends, tom man and norm stein got a lot of attention for their book. it's worse than what it looks. the republicans have become more radical and more determined to roll back not only parts of the new deal but parts of the great society. i don't think john boehner himself is that far to the right but he's got to worry about this caucus of his that i think does contain a lot of people who fit into that radical category and it's created a real problem for our politics, particularly in the last two years. >> and they also don't seem to really deal with facts because when you really dig down into it, the average tax rates for income 50 to $75,000, taxes were actually higher under reagan. in 2009, it was 27%. in '81 under reagan, it was 31%. so they are really selling a myth. they made reagan this great hero but when you actually watch, using your term how reagan governed, it is not exactly -- well, it'
now on cutting government spinding, but when you ask them to identify exactly what you want to cut, you get mishmash from them. you get $100 billion in medicare savings by increasing the retirement age from 65 to 67. you get some unspecified savings from reducing social security. the only specifics if you add them up are about $300 billion or $400 billion in specific cuts, the rest are inspecific. this is the party whose fundamental premise is to cut government spending. you ask them to identify how they want to do it, and they start speaking in gibberish. it shows you this is a phony, phony movement on the part of conservatives to cut government spending. >> absolutely. ari, the president took a question on twitter this afternoon. quote, what is your opposition to taking away deductions for the 2% rather than upping the rate? seems like a reasonable compromise. his answer, not enough revenue unless you end charitable deductions. he's right, isn't he? the math doesn't add up. it didn't add up with mitt romney. it doesn't add up today. >> it doesn't add up, and those targeted revenu
question is whether they do so before or after the government goes over the so-called fiscal cliff. "new york times" columnist david brooks describes it this way. republicans will be raising middle class taxes in order to serve the rich. shafting sam's club to benefit the country club. if republicans do this, they might as well get mitt romney's 47% comments printed on t-shirts and wear them for the rest of their lives. so republicans have to realize they're going to have to cave on tax rates. the only question is what they get in return. michael steele is former chair of the republican national committee and an msnbc political analyst, and steve mcmahon's a democratic strategist. michael, you're on the republican side, and what do you think of that? the argument made by brooks which is more sophisticated. make your deal now while you can get something for it because after january 1st you will just be saving your rear end. >> i think he's absolutely right. i think part of that deal should include giving the president what everybody in this town agrees on, and that is those middle tax cut
to govern and i can only govern if i make you understand that i'm not going to put up with it anymore. >> it seems like an outburst that has been two years in coming and is loaded with things like, we don't have control of the united states senate because of you, tea party people who have given us nuts as republican senate nominees. and boehner's life would be so much better if he was working with a republican senate instead of the democratic senate he is working with. >> yes. and also, though, i think this message is that the speaker, he wants to govern. the whole point of coming to washington is not just to slash, cut, close. it is about governing. and john boehner for whatever you think of him is someone that wants to get a deal. he wants to govern. by doing what he has done, he is saying, look. enough with the games. we don't have the senate as you were saying. the only way we can do this is if i pull on the reins a whole lot. not just a bit. that's what he's done. >> the striking thing is how much outrage there is not. we had to comb around to find these comments. thank you very
in dollar value from the federal government than they pay back in taxes. so we're going to a majority of takers versus makers in america. >> chasing ever-higher spending with ever-higher tax rates will decrease the number of makers in society and increase the number of takers. >> we do not have a nation, a majority of takers, we want to have a majority of makers. >> to hear paul ryan take it, a sizable chunk of the american people are nothing but freeloaders, mooching off the productive folks at the top. that kind of talk made him the perfect partner for mitt romney, didn't it? but wait a minute, that was the old paul ryan, we've got a new and improved paul ryan and he's singing a much different tune. last night in his first address since the republican's defeat, romney gave some veiled criticism of his former running mate's 47% remarks by offering this. >> both parties tend to divide americans into our voters and their voters. let's be really clear. republicans must steer far clear of that trap. we must speak to the aspirations and the anxieties of every american. >> but you didn't.
are a year later after we've been through this fiasco already. we've been through the threat of a government shutdown. everybody's known this time was coming. i understand negotiating. i understand taking a hard line. i just wonder, with america and the world, business leaders here, business leaders around the world, the markets, everybody else looking so closely at this, was it necessary for the president to be so provocative with something that, you know, even "the new york times" said was, quote, loaded with democratic priorities, and really gave republicans nothing. >> again, it's a curious offer. i would imagine there has -- tim geithner's too smart of a guy, and this administration is filled with smart people. they must have a serious strategic plan. but if you were a pedestrian watching this, if the ceo of a company that's not been into the white house, a medium-size to small company, it has to be a source for alarm this morning that maybe they're not nearly as close to a deal as we thought. let alone if you're a ceo if you've been in the office with the president and you've laid out
of our investigation which is what did our government know and what could it have done before the terrorist attack to protect the lives of the americans who were there. >> don't forget something here. this is not susan rice's first political rodeo. he didn't suddenly appear from team obama land in 2008. she has a lot of friends in this town, very experienced in washington. while this hasn't been the best week for her, it appears she can survive the confirmation process. the person who may have had a worst week than her is cia acting director mike morrell. he could end up the real political loser in all this. his confirmation hearing could be the one that is the true proxy fight on all this if he ends up the president's choice to head up the cia which a lot of people say, frankly, he may be. >>> there's another big story out there around the world that will have some political and other ramifications. palestinians go to the united nations today in an attempt to upgrade their status in the eyes of the global community. the u.s. says it won't help its bid to establish a palestini
sector, the government has an important role to play in creating a massive jobs program that will generate the kind of consumer demand that will then cause the private sector to really start staffing up in a way that we need them to staff up to have full employment. but that should be the goal. full employment. >> terry, going back to the fiscal slope negotiations, there's basically no women really involved in the high level negotiations. nancy pelosi is sort of a side player as she was in the debt ceiling negotiations. research has shown that female legislators attract more co-sponsors for their bills, indicating they're better at consensus building. other research also shows in business and in the world women are -- tend to be better consensus builders. would we be better served to have a few women at the table there? >> oh, absolutely. you know, we are still well under 20% of the united states congress. and that shows in the kind of fiscal debate that we're having right now. if you had 50% of the congress were women, i think you'd have a lot more talk about the need f
beneficiaries of medicare. it makes sense. makes the government much smarter for how they buy medicine for people under medicare. those are just three examples. but there's $600 billion of examples in the president's proposals. if the republicans don't like those ideas, and they want to do it differently, they want to go beyond that, they have to tell us what makes sense for them. and then we can take a look at it. but what we can't do is figure out what makes sense for them. >> in terms of tax rates, in your mind, you don't have to go back to the clinton era tax rates for this to be a workable deal. >> well, i think you do. >> all the way up? >> again, our proposal is to let those rates go back to clinton levels for 2% of the wealthiest americans. and combine that with tax reforms that limit deductions for the wealthiest americans. we think if you do that, alongside the spending savings, then you can put the country back on a much more responsible fiscal path. >> including getting rid of the mortgage interest deduction or the charitable giving deduction? do you think those have to be
but it gets back to the issue of where are the power levers and the forcing mechanisms to make the government deal with the deficit? that's not coming from the markets. the bond market is saying here's the money you want and we're kind of creating these things out of nowhere to force us to deal with the long-term deficit problem but the short term markets aren't doing it. >> neil, talk about these markets you speak of. i want to play a clip of maria the other day. >> the markets right now are expecting a deal. the markets have been trading fine. if we don't gate deal, we are going to see a sizable decline in stocks. we are going to get a big disappointment. >> markets will be disappointed. the markets have expectations. who is this mr. markets that is endowed with the personality anç expectations and is this monolithic creature that will respond to, you know, what's going on in washington? are we giving the markets a little bit too much personality here? >> well, yeah. i mean, obviously the market is millions of people and institutions all over the world deciding whether to buy stocks or bon
members of the house but people who are anti-politics in a certain kind of way from the tea party, anti-government, anti-compromise, when they come in to your group, it is impossible to lead. by the way, imt not someone who at any point criticized john boehner's leadership skills. i believe all those criticisms were misplaced. he had a problem with who got elected under his party banner. it's not that previous speakers were better leaders than he was. previous speakers didn't have as many crazy people in the room with him. >> that's a good point. >> let's see how much the republicans appreciate his sage counsel if he says guys, we have to hike rates. i'm waiting for that. speaking of that, lawrence, i know you were there in washington when the clinton rates that we're all talking about now went into effect back in 1993. you probably remember the republicans saying there would be a second recession and millions of jobs lost and none of of that happened in the 1990s. now we're back at the point where democrats for a decade have fought the lower rates and saying we need clinton rates. if it's going t
wants on the top 2% will run this government not for eight years or eight weeks or eight weeks but run this government for eight days, which means it's not a solution. the president is not interested in real policy solutions by evidenced by what he has proposed, he's interested in politics and that's the challenge that we have a getting through that and making certain that we not be talking politics, we talk about positive policy for american people, getting committee rolling and getting jobs created. >> the administration, as we've been saying, has said they're prepared to go over the cliff. we heard that from tim geithner. if republicans refuse to raise taxes on the wealthy and john boehner said yesterday that's unacceptable, though he admitted any revenue will be coming from the rich. let me play that for you. >> the revenues we're putting on the table are going to come from guess who? the rich. there are ways to limit deductions, close loopholes and have the same people pay more of their money to the federal government without raising tax rates, which we believe will harm our econo
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 146 (some duplicates have been removed)